The thing that keeps bothering me about this picture is how in-focus the tree is behind him. It's as if the camera's face-detect passed over that pasty doughy thing in the center and said "It...it's gotta be in the tree!"

Either that or it's a photoshop, i can tell by the pixels, etc.

More likely explanation is that it's cropped out of a picture with him beside someone else, and the camera focused on the middle of the scene = the trees between them in the background. Common problem with simple auto-focus systems. And it would of course be mean to suggest there were no recent pix of just the boy-wonder...

This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

'rats aren't gonna like the revenge.

My godI had no idea. Please link to a site or sites that I can visit to educate myself on this most troubling crime.

You obviously have access to some very important information. Do your part and spread it far and wide. Spread it as wide as you can. Don't let this get lost down the rabbit hole.

This conspiracy is so vast, it involved millions of Democratic deep cover agents posing as Republicans voting for a Democratic candidate.

/figured these bogus stats sites entire purpose was to further the voter fraud angle, since birtherism is dying.//after all, wishing for the destruction of America is okay if the election is won by a ni.... er, won illegitimately.

clambam:jso2897: clambam: You've got to hand it to Barack and his magical time/weather machine. If Sandy had come just one week earlier, Obama might have lost NY and NJ--just ask anyone on Staten Island who still has no power what they think of Obama.

As to this kind of craziness--in retrospect it's too bad the repubs didn't go full derp and nominate Santorum or Perry. The electoral disaster would have been of truly epic proportions and we wouldn't have to hear from die-hard teabggers for the next four years about how Romney was too liberal and a true conservative would have won.

We wouldn't? Don't you think it's a little early in the day to be hitting the Purple Trainwreck Kush?

A genuine Tea Party candidate would have lost to Obama in a landslide. I think it would be very hard to say then "Rick Santorum wasn't conservative enough, that's why we lost." I mean, I suppose they could say that but that's a little crazy even for the crazies. At a certain point being a true believer in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary becomes too much for even a Teabagger to support. Maybe I'm wrong, but under the circumstances a CATscan might be in order because we've gone past the realm of mere mental illness into something more organic.

Again - do you really think that the fact that it would be hard for anyone who isn't brain damaged to say would actually stop them from saying it? I do not.LOOK AT THE SHIAT THEY ARE SAYING NOW.

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

This is the second thread in two weeks based on a website from this guy in which the website was actively being skull farked by savvy Internet kids.

The first time I sorta felt bad for the guy but at this point I can't pity him. If he didn't know he was negligent before he sure should know now. Put down the cake and handle your business fella, this isn't anonymous hacking your site, you should have some basic level of security for god's sake.

The Third Man:I'm particularly amused that Pennsylvania is one of the suspect states. Obama won it by close to 300,000 votes. The state has a Republican governor and Republican Secretary of State....obviously those guys really fell down on the job to have so many votes stolen from them right under their noses.

The amusing thing was the only attempt at voter fraud in PA was the Republican's unconstitutional Voter ID law.

Democrats are known for years for stuffing the ballot boxes in the city of Philadelphia, often it is the margin of victory for statewide candidates who lose state wide as Democrats but can win the election by gaining enough votes among the million registered voters, as well as other votes cast, in Philadelphia.

This was true with the state of Pennsylvania in the 2012 presidential election.

Obama was reported to have won the state 2,907,448 votes to 2,619,583 for Romney, a margin of just 287,865 state wide out of more than 5.5 million votes cast. Obama's margin in Philadelphia County alone was 465,184 votes, where he won 557,024 to 91,840 including 59 voting divisions where Romney received zero votes and many more voting divisions where Romney received fewer than a half percent of the votes.

The thing is:

1) there's no was to "stuff" the ballot boxes in Philly. We used to used mechanical voting machines, and now we use an electronic analogue. They retain the vote count and are held after the election. My mother (a Republican) used to work the polls here, and she's certain there's no way you could rid or fix the numbers the machines produce, as they're triple-checked. The worst you could do is misreport, but that would get caught later.

2) I live in Philly Ward 1 (South Philly, basically the area around Pat's and Geno's), and I'm surprised that the turnout for Mitt was as high as it was. That basically represents old Italian-Americans who weren't going to vote for the "eggplant"

3) It's not surprising that there are wards which registered no votes for Mitt; (poor) people in this city aren't that smart, but they're not about to vote against their own self-interest.

4) The one thing the Democratic machine does in this city (which is perfectly legal) is give out "hand money" which is used to get taxis to get voters to polls, pay people to drive the elderly, etc. When they're in full swing, they're very good at getting the vote out, as they did in 2008 and 2012. When they're not, Republicans win in PA (as happened in 2010).

5) While PA looks fairly large, most of the middle of the state is lightly populated; 20% of the population lived in metro Philly and metro Pittsburgh, and another big chunk is split between Erie and Scranton/WIlkes-Barre. You can win as many Republican votes and as many counties as you want in the middle of the state and still not win. It's simple math.

Skleenar:If you simply start with the axiom that more voters wanted Mitt Romney as president than Barack Obama, it becomes clear, ipso facto, that there was massive vote fraud in the 2012 election. One simply has to look at the "official" popular vote total to see incontrovertible evidence of this fraud. And, from my experience, this is the most insidious version of fraud possible--the version whereby one of the candidates illegitimately convinces a majority of voters that they would prefer him as president, instead of their true choice.

I speak as someone who is a direct victim of this heinous electoral crime. Not only was I shamefully convinced by the Fraudster in Chief to cast my vote for him in the past election, I am still under this delusion that I prefer his re-election to the prospect of a Mitt Romney presidency. I don't know if our nation will ever heal

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

For me the best part about that post aside from how stupid it is, is that it requires hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to pull something like that off. And every single one of them has to keep it a secret.

The director of the CIA couldn't keep it a secret that he was banging some broad on the side but a nationwide vote fraud conspiracy? Easy peasy.

Noam Chimpsky:This guy is way underestimating the fraud that took place. Half the Democrat votes could be fraud, not to mention the Republican votes that weren't counted or switched to Democrat votes. I knew they had the machines fixed when they started the business about Romney fixing the machines. If you are making the accusation, you are free to engage in that exact behavior because the opposition will be on the defensive.

It's easy when most of the Republicans charged with safeguarding the elections are actually Democrats in disguise.

'rats aren't gonna like the revenge.

I responded to you earlier but I assume there was a democrat conspiracy that prevented you from seeing it.got my fingers crossed this time.

where do you get your information? link to it will you?wouldn't want to let the librul mob claim you were talking out of yer arse on this one.

For me the best part about that post aside from how stupid it is, is that it requires hundreds, maybe thousands, of people to pull something like that off. And every single one of them has to keep it a secret.

The director of the CIA couldn't keep it a secret that he was banging some broad on the side but a nationwide vote fraud conspiracy? Easy peasy.

What I like the best is that every point is backed up with anti-logic. Because A, then !A. there's nothing to even ask for citation from, it's beautiful.

James!:I guess that mea culpa wasn't paying the bills. Back to crazy town!

Knew that chucklehead would be back in time for the mid-terms. He had his ass handed to him, on a silver platter, by Nate Silver and, well, reality, and so he's now spinning a new way to attract attention.

He's an asshole, plain and simple. Giving him anything other than outright, explicit derision is pointless.

Look, I think it's obvious at this point that this really is satire. I mean, I had this suspicion even with the "Unskewed" stuff but it's really obvious now. I mean, come on - "Barack O'Fraudo"? Who would say something like that unironically?

qorkfiend:I just gotta say this: if Obama really did fraud his way to victory, he and his team executed flawlessly. I mean, in addition to the massive, statewide ballot-stuffing and machine-hacking that took place all over Republican states and there's zero evidence for, he managed to get state-level polls to reflect the final outcome in advance of the election. That takes hard work and dedication.

The state polls -- excepting Gallup and Rasmussen -- were intentionally rigged to avert suspicion of voter fraud.

This was "exposed" by way of completely unsubstantiated assertions by postings on Free Republic before the election occurred.

Biological Ali:Look, I think it's obvious at this point that this really is satire. I mean, I had this suspicion even with the "Unskewed" stuff but it's really obvious now. I mean, come on - "Barack O'Fraudo"? Who would say something like that unironically?

The type of clueless moron that would've put up something like "Unskewed Polls", perhaps?

The problem with this is it isn't surprising at all. Romney didn't have much of anything in his campaign to appeal to inner-city voters. The fact that his support was close to nil in some neighborhoods, honestly, is probably to be expected.

Conversely, if you go to deep red areas of the country, say rural Oklahoma or Wyoming or Idaho, you can find plenty of precincts in which Obama got zero votes, or one or two, compared to hundreds for Romney. That's not evidence of fraud either.

I'd go one further and say that voter fraud, however you do it, is not capable of eliminating votes for the other guy, it only bolsters your own guy's vote ('guy' here not being gender specific).

If the suspicious detail is that Romney got zero votes, then the only suspicion up for investigation is whether it's electoral fraud committed by electoral officials. It can't be voter fraud. It's most certainly not a legit arguement in favour of any measures relating to production of kinds of ID to "prevent voter fraud" as this would not have made any difference in respect of the detail regarding Romney's vote count.And seriously, who the fark would be so STUPID as to rig an election and say "we got 100% of the vote" and not "we got 97 percent". Many, many dictators know this and rig elections blatantly and only the really dumb ones pretend they got unanimous support.